Mr President, Ladies and Gentlemen,
this is the first time that I have had the honour of addressing
an international assembly as Prime Minister of Portugal. And, as
the President has just pointed out, my presence here follows closely
on the meeting of the Foreign Ministers of Council of Europe member
countries in Lisbon on 10 April.

This meeting was of great importance for Portugal, for it
bore witness to the support shown by the member countries of the
Council of Europe for democratic Portugal.

It was also an opportunity to demonstrate, through the presence
of almost all the Foreign Ministers, that the Council of Europe
was capable of bringing these Ministers together in the capital
of a member state to take decisions of paramount importance for
the future of a European policy co-ordinated not only in terms of
Europe, Atlantic partnership and democratic solidarity, but also
as a means of facing up together to the risks that threaten countries
sharing the same values of culture and civilisation.

I am therefore most glad of the opportunity given to me today;
but I must remind you that this is not the first time the voice
of democratic Portugal has been heard in the Council of Europe.
In 1977, Mr Mario Soares, then Prime Minister, made democratic Portugal’s
voice heard within these walls when he expounded our country’s European
plans.

I am also glad, as newly-elected Prime Minister, to observe
that these views on Portugal’s European option are widely shared;
for despite political and ideological divergences and differences
of programme, Portugal’s socialist governments have succeeded in
establishing a consensus on European policy, a consensus which at present
allows a continuity in European terms – I would even say Atlantic
terms – to be expressed. There is no difficulty on this point.

However, and I say so most sincerely, Mr Soares and his governments
did not succeed in establishing the same consensus in internal affairs.
It would be hypocritical of me to say that I regret this failure,
because if Mr Soares had achieved this same consensus in domestic
policy, it would have been he, not I, who had the opportunity of
addressing the Council of Europe today.

The fact that all Portuguese parties have shared the same,
clear-cut European option ever since the beginning of Portugal’s
present democratic period represents a great asset to the cause
of peace and to the cause of a united Europe.

I must confess, however, that this European option is a source
of some problems for us, because we reject the idea of Portugal
entering the European Economic Community with the status of a less-developed
country possessing, admittedly, a privileged climate and fine beaches
but lagging behind other European countries in its development.

Portugal’s integration into Europe means that European solidarity
must work in our favour to help us bridge this tremendous development
gap. This at least is what we hope, because there is no question
of our joining the Common Market blindfold. The terms must be favourable,
and Common Market membership must help to set Portugal rapidly on
the road to development.

I shall quote just two figures from which you will appreciate
the scale of our economic and cultural backwardness: our annual
output per inhabitant is 2 000 dollars, and we have an adult illiteracy
rate of about 30%.

Within the Council of Europe we have already been assisted
by the other member nations. To achieve rapid development our country
will be relying heavily on similar support for some highly practical
projects, for such assistance should be provided not only in the
short term but also for wider-ranging plans.

What are these plans? Among our priority aims is one which
forms the cornerstone of our foreign policy: preserving peace and
building security through co-operation. The policy which stems from
this objective is probably common to all West European countries.

First, an observation: in the present circumstances the major
threat to peace, co-operation and security comes from imperialism,
from hegemonism – the expansionist hegemonism and imperialism of
the Soviet Union. This is the foremost risk faced by our generation.

A second risk results from non-observance of the rules of
the international community.

Two recent events prove that both these dangers are real ones;
they should prompt us to immediate demonstrations of solidarity.
These two events are the invasion of Afghanistan and the taking
of hostages at the American Embassy in Teheran.

The invasion of Afghanistan has turned into the wholesale
massacre of a peaceful people, to which the international community
should not remain indifferent. Immediately my government was formed
on 3 January 1980, I solemnly and firmly condemned the Afghanistan
invasion. My government was the first to recall its ambassador for
consultations. We took concrete steps by denouncing, in particular,
the cultural agreement between Portugal and the Soviet Union. When
human rights are trampled upon in this fashion it is no longer possible
to maintain such cultural agreements after they have been made valueless
by the Soviet power’s violation of the Afghan people’s rights –
amid, incidentally, the greatest indifference. We trust that the
West European community will condemn this invasion in a pragmatic
manner so as to be really heard by this hegemonic power.

Another source of anxiety is the hostages affair, which has
already been emulated in Latin America and elsewhere. This affair
is a grave breach of international and diplomatic laws. And unless
it gives rise to a reaction, the international community will be
in danger of being transformed into a jungle where might is right.

Unless nations’ rights, the laws of the international community
and human rights are respected, peace will not be possible. And
if we are to live in peace, we must create security through co-operation.
That is why Portugal’s European option, with its Atlantic vocation
and policy, is a major asset and should form part of a joint European policy.

Political co-operation in Europe possesses, in the form of
this Assembly, a privileged means of action. Here there are no economic
problems, no budgetary obstacles, no disputes about mutton. It is
our duty, as members of this Council, to make full use of the instruments
at our disposal in order to build a joint European policy. Solidarity
between members of the Council of Europe and among the whole European
community means adopting joint positions on such important and tragic
events as those I have mentioned – the invasion and massacre in
Afghanistan and the Teheran hostages affair.

We believe – and this is the basis of certain priorities in
our foreign policy – that this European solidarity, in order to
be truly Western, should be co-ordinated with the policy of the
United States. It is in Europe’s best interest to co-ordinate its
policy with the transatlantic countries – the United States, Canada
and certain Latin American countries such as Brazil and Venezuela.

During these times of such gravity for our nations, the United
States Government is not in need of our criticism, even if it is
well-founded, but of our support. It is for this reason that my
own government, without awaiting the joint resolution of the European
Economic Community Foreign Ministers, decided to show support for
the United States with regard to the economic sanctions to be imposed
on Iran.

Although Portugal is a small, impoverished and dependent country,
we believe that for solidarity’s sake our own economic interests
must be sacrificed.

That is why, last Thursday, we decided to impose a total embargo
on Iran. (Applause)

Today peace is at stake throughout the world: numerous events
are taking place, simultaneously, all over the globe. We can no
longer afford to hide our heads in the sand and go on living as
before. Peace is in jeopardy in many parts of the world. Only co-operation
between Europe, the Atlantic countries, Africa, the Middle East and
the Far East can succeed in establishing worldwide solidarity to
face up to the risk of hegemony and imperialism.

This is the reason why Portugal is simultaneously developing
preferential contacts with Europe and the European Economic Community,
with the United States, with Latin American countries, with Africa,
with Middle East countries and with China. It is our belief that
this is not only in our interests as a small country, but also an
international requirement. The only way to build a sound peace is
to found it not on constant concessions and retreats but on firm
measures; the surest way to avoid another cataclysm is not to move
backwards into war but resolutely to combat, even with strong measures,
the threats to peaceful coexistence which are springing up in certain
regions in every continent.

It is not an easy task, but it is, if I may say so, our generation’s
“job”. When one sees world leaders discussing whether the present
situation is more like the situation that preceded the 1914-18 world
war or the Second World War, it is impossible not to be deeply concerned,
because between two such alternatives of war no choice is possible.
No, one must seek a different alternative, based on a theme for
which the Council of Europe has played and will always play a vital
role: that of human rights and the development of nations. The principles of
representative democracy, the rule of law, solidarity and shared
responsibility should be brought into play not only for the developed
countries but for all countries.

And here we find a further cause for concern. The economic
and social situation of the developing countries, of the third world
countries, is worsening dramatically because of the increase in
oil prices and hence in the prices of manufactured goods. The less
developed countries are today in a worse situation than three or
five years ago. A head of steam is building up, tremendous pressure
is being exerted, and if nothing is done it will blow the fragile
lid off the enormous international community boiler with its internal
tension.

It is up to us, and above all up to you, the more developed
countries – although you should at the same time heed the words
of less developed or developing countries – to make a point in this
North-South dialogue of going beyond a mere dialogue, for a dialogue
is words, and what is needed is solidarity translated into concrete terms.
When one sees, for example, the great concern felt by certain developed
countries at the prospect of losing export markets in the Soviet
Union that were acquired during the so-called détente, one dares
hope that replacement markets will be found. The third world countries
could provide such an alternative outlet; but the terms should be
favourable to them rather than to the exporting countries so as
to promote the third world countries’ economic development, on which
international peace and survival depend.

Present-day democracy signifies not only liberty and representative
democracy, but also social justice, a social justice which the developed
countries have created for their own peoples inside their own borders,
but which they have yet to pass on to the less developed countries,
which still make up the overwhelming majority of the world’s population.

Because of these preoccupations, my government, as I stated
earlier, does not limit its foreign policy to the European context.
Portugal would lose one of her most important dimensions if she
gave up her interest in Africa, an interest which is of course of
an entirely different kind from that shown before the Revolution
of 25 April 1974. Today, co-operation with the young African republics,
Portugal’s former colonies, is being conducted on a basis of mutual
dignity, non-interference, respect and co-operation.

It is also our desire to broaden the scope of our foreign
action to the Middle East countries and, if possible, contribute
to the best of our ability to resolving the Palestinian problem,
which is casting a shadow on the whole Middle East area and jeopardising
its future.

The Palestinians’ right to a homeland is undeniable, but so
is the right of the Israeli people, of the State of Israel, to secure
frontiers and to survival as a nation. It is to be feared that,
despite the avenues opened up, which should be further explored,
certain powers may do their utmost to prevent a peaceful solution
to the Palestinian problem.

Turning now to Africa, one sees hopeful signs, concrete events
which lead us to believe that in Africa, south of the Sahara, a
reconciliation is possible. I am referring to the solution of the
Zimbabwe problem and the moderation shown by Mugabe. The success
of this policy is vital, not only for the future of Zimbabwe but
also for co-operation between Southern African states; for I hope
that, if granted a certain period, the Republic of South Africa
will accept a similar solution for Namibia and that, internally,
South Africa will eventually evolve towards a less questionable
form of government than at present.

In the final analysis, all the Western countries are faced
with a challenge in conjunction with the Middle East and Far East
countries. It is a challenge of generations, as I said earlier,
a challenge which lays tremendous responsibility on our shoulders,
and it is disturbing to note the widening gap between public opinion
in the United States and in the European countries. This development,
to my mind indisputable, is a recent trend, and is very harmful
to European stability and the cause of peace.

It is for this reason that we have endeavoured to clear up
this misunderstanding, and we thus hope that the Europe of the Nine
will rapidly take decisions showing the American nation and its
public opinion that the Atlantic alliance, the alliance between
Europe and the United States, is not a hollow concept and that Europe does
not want to leave the task of providing a deterrent to the United
States in order to benefit alone from détente.

Europe and the West – even the East – can no longer live from
day to day. They must think ahead to the medium and long terms in
order to avoid the catastrophes which would otherwise occur and
which would be more dire, destructive and dangerous for the human
race than the conflicts of 1914-18 and 1939-45.

Before drawing to a close, I should like to raise a point
of great importance to Portugal, that of emigration. From 5 to 8 May
the Council will be holding a conference, the Conference of European
Ministers responsible for Migration Affairs. We attach the greatest
importance to this subject, and I hope – indeed, I am sure – that
this conference will not be a mere formality but will enable joint
policies to be drawn up. For, at present, European economies are
largely dependent on the contribution of migrant workers; and one
of the foremost workforces, without which Europe’s present prosperity
would be non-existent, is the Portuguese one.

Portugal is now a small country of 90 000 square kilometres,
plus the Atlantic islands. Yet she is much more than that, and is
trying to organise herself as a nation on this small territory,
but with an immense people scattered over all the continents, whose
major workforce is here in Europe.

Other countries are in a similar situation. These situations
call for joint policies designed to ensure that migrant workers’
social rights are fully respected and that the work they perform
in favour of countries other than their own is given proper consideration.

Mr President, Ladies and Gentlemen, I have already mentioned
human rights and the Council of Europe’s fundamental task of furthering
them. Human rights form the foundation of our civilisation, a personalised civilisation
which accepts the human individual as its underlying philosophy,
as a basis for all its action and as its ultimate aim.

I shall conclude with a quotation which seems to me to put
the problem of human rights in a nutshell. Let me quote Benjamin
Constant who said:

“Real beings are sacrificed to
the abstract Being, and the holocaust of individuals is offered
up to the people en masse.”

Thank you,
Prime Minister, for that most interesting statement. As we are running
rather late and as the Prime Minister has indicated his willingness
to answer questions, we have decided to limit the question and answer
session to about half an hour. The first question will be put by
Mr Munoz Peirats.

Mr MUNOZ PEIRATS (Spain)

(spoke
in Spanish; as no translation of the speech in one of the official languages
or additional working languages has been supplied to the Secretariat
by the speaker, the speech is not published here, under the terms
of Rules 18 and 22 of the Rules of Procedure).

Mr Sa Carneiro, Prime Minister of Portugal

(spoke
in Spanish; as no translation of the speech in one of the official
languages or additional working languages has been supplied to the
Secretariat by the speaker, the speech is not published here, under
the terms of Rules 18 and 22 of the Rules of Procedure).

Mr BRUGNON (France) (translation)

Until now, Portugal refused to recognise and accept the occupation
of East Timor by Indonesia. What exactly is the Portuguese Government’s
position on this problem? According to recent reports in the French
press, you stated that your country should “resign itself to Timor’s
forced integration into Indonesia”.

Mr Sa Carneiro, Prime Minister of Portugal (translation)

I have already denied these statements,
which I never made – I have not even met the journalist in question
– and which were put into my mouth by a French daily newspaper.
I believe you are referring to Le Matin.
These alleged statements are in no way a reflection of the Portuguese
standpoint. We are partially responsible for the situation in Timor.
Under our constitution, it falls to the President of the Republic
and to the government to resolve the question of the determination
of the people of Timor. Steps will be taken to fulfil this joint
obligation.

You will be familiar with the development of this matter.
Within the United Nations an increasing number of countries accept
Indonesia’s domination of Timor. While respecting our constitution’s
provisions regarding the determination of the people of Timor and
taking measures in keeping with the people’s desiderata, we have
a duty to give precedence to solving the human problems which arise
and which take priority over any political solution. That is the
position of my government.

Mr CARVALHAS (Portugal) (translation)

Prime Minister, what action does the government intend to
take in its foreign policy to prevent the repatriation of Portuguese
emigrants, following the economic crisis and the Stoleru and Bonnet
laws?

In the same context, is it certain that the solutions to Portugal’s
foreign policy problems are to be sought in connection with her
emigrants?

And was is not according to the principles of direct and active
participation that the Assembly of the Republic passed the act on
consular committees for migrants? For what reason is your government
not putting this act into effect?

Further, you have spoken here of peace, but you have publicly
declared yourself, both in Portugal and abroad, to be an opponent
of détente. How do you reconcile this stance with the Helsinki Final
Act and the Portuguese Constitution?

Mr Sa Carneiro, Prime Minister of Portugal (translation)

The Honourable Member began by
expressing the view that the Portuguese Foreign Minister had spoken
here as Prime Minister and that the Prime Minister of Portugal was
speaking as Foreign Minister. Even if that is the case, I am glad
of it. We belong to the same government and share its political
leadership, for the Foreign Minister is also Deputy Prime Minister
of the Portuguese Government; we speak the same language and share
the same objective and the same policy; and if we do have points
in common, then that is something in our favour and not an argument
for attacking us.

The first question raised by the Honourable Member concerned
the measures my government was examining to prevent the repatriation
of emigrants, following the economic crisis and certain French laws.

First, it is fortunate for us that the Portuguese emigrants
work and live in West European countries and not in East European
countries; European solidarity is thus acting in our favour. (Applause)

This European option of Portuguese workers was exercised long
before the democratisation of Portugal, and forms one of the cornerstones
of our European policy. Our present contacts with European governments, including
the French Government, and the contacts established by previous
Portuguese governments, as well as the President of the Republic,
with the French authorities reassure us with regard to the risk
of repatriation.

Obviously, if Europe’s economic difficulties worsen and unemployment
increases, we will be faced with this problem. But who will not
have an unemployment problem in a recession which could be a structural
disaster for Western economies? We will face these difficulties
together and try to find joint solutions. That is the true European
spirit, the spirit of the Council of Europe.

The Honourable Member also asked why my government is not
applying an act, passed before the last elections, on consular committees
for emigrants. This is a problem which deserves to be examined and
which will be examined and, if necessary, put to the majority for
parliament to decide, but that is a mere detail. We are far more
concerned with a policy that takes account of our people’s dispersal.
Our fundamental concern in this respect is a new nationality law
which will give Portuguese emigrants the right, if they so wish,
to keep their Portuguese nationality even after becoming naturalised
citizens of the country in which they live or work.

In addition, we are about to lay before parliament a new electoral
act under which emigrants will be more broadly represented. At present,
Portuguese emigrants can elect four out of the two hundred and fifty
MPs. We want this figure to be doubled, or even more than doubled,
so that a country with two million citizens working in Europe, America
and Africa may have a proper system of representation in parliament,
and so that a country which lives to a great extent on the foreign
currency sent in by its emigrants – amounting last year to several thousand
million dollars, the equivalent of our oil bill – will think of
its fellow citizens not only as a source of currency but as an integral
part of the same human entity, the same nation.

According to the Honourable Member whose last question concerned
my manner of defending peace, I am an opponent of détente. Let me
qualify this as follows: yes, I am opposed to a certain conception
of détente, détente as envisaged by the Soviet Union and certain
European communist countries closest to the Soviet Union, which
view détente as an opportunity to expand the Soviet Union’s imperialism
and increase its hegemony. Détente cannot be an end in itself. It
is not an end in itself; it is a means of building peace.

Over recent years Western countries have accepted world-wide
détente and observed détente on all the continents, whereas the
Soviet Union has observed détente in Europe only, taking advantage
of the wider-ranging détente practised by Europeans to pursue its
expansionism. A case in point is the invasion of Afghanistan, which
was a breach by the Soviet Union of world-wide détente. We do not
want détente to be a tactical weapon. What we do want is that the
possibility of using European tactical weapons, if necessary, to protect
détente and peace should not be forgone in the name of détente itself.
And if détente is not observed, is not accepted as a means, a universal
means, of establishing peace, then it is our right to state quite
solemnly that it is the Soviet Union which has harmed détente, failed
to apply it in good faith and thus dealt it a fatal blow.

One must face up to reality, and not accept the scenarios
fabricated to further the cause of a certain hegemonic imperialism.
It is our responsibility to declare to our fellow citizens and in
international assemblies that it is the Soviet Union which has derived
the principal benefit from détente, even if the economic ties formed
during the period of détente have made it more dependent on European
countries than it previously was. It is this new reality which should
prompt us to adopt a new conception of détente and practise it differently.
I trust that Western countries will come to the Madrid Conference
with common standpoints, knowing what they want, and that they will
leave the conference with clear-cut decisions, not allowing themselves
to lose their cohesion in a series of decisions that are too vague
and general to be of any real effectiveness, as was the case in
Belgrade.

Mr VALLEIX (France) (translation)

Prime Minister, I cannot conceal how impressed I was after
your statement, not only by its courage but also, as a Frenchman,
by the quality of your elocution and your mastery of our language.

You are aware of the importance attached by the Parliamentary
Assembly to reducing North-South imbalances within Europe. I should
like to ask you what policy you believe Portugal can implement in
order to narrow the economic gap between Portugal and the North
European countries, and what aid Portugal expects both from the
European Economic Community countries and the Council of Europe
countries in order to achieve its objectives, and, on a more general
level, what political contribution Portugal intends to make to the
North-South dialogue between industrialised countries and third
world countries in view of Portugal’s particular situation in Europe.

Mr Sa Carneiro, Prime Minister of Portugal (translation)

Portugal is looking to the Common
Market, the European Economic Community, to provide support in the
form of partial financing of joint projects. When a delegation headed
by Mr Natali visited Lisbon, a plan was put forward dealing with
regional policy, vocational training and small and medium-sized
industries. In the direct contacts we are at present pursuing between
the Prime Ministers and Foreign Ministers of the Nine, we are trying
to demonstrate that financing by the Community fund of 40% of this
plan is essential in order to close the gap between Portugal and
the developed countries. The plan is to be carried out over a period
of three years. We place great expectations in it, and the Community authorities
have already agreed to finance certain development schemes.

Some projects have also been financed by the Council of Europe’s
Resettlement Fund. All these plans are under way, and it is hoped
that despite international economic difficulties they will be successfully
carried through and even expanded. Regarding the North-South dialogue
and third world countries, our contacts with the Latin American
and African countries, especially our former colonies, will be a
means of intensifying this dialogue and action.

We are perfectly willing and fully determined to help to reduce
inequalities between North and South. To achieve this object, Europe
should practise with regard to Africa and Latin America a more consistent
and effective policy than at present, and we are willing to participate
in the drawing up and application of such a policy.

Mr BACELAR (Portugal) (translation)

Mr Sa Carneiro, I greet you as Prime Minister of my country,
brought into office by democratic elections, even though I myself
belong to the opposition and am a member of the Socialist Party.

I should nevertheless like to ask you two questions.

First, I am glad that you paid tribute to Mr Soares, your
predecessor, and that you stressed the continuity in our European
and Atlantic policy. However, certain distinctions should not be
overlooked, and in this respect I should like to return to your
statement, with which I was not familiar before this sitting as
the text had not been distributed.

Prime Minister, you have just said that our government is
pursuing, first and foremost, a policy of European integration,
but such a policy would require some consequential action in the
affairs you spoke of, the Afghan and Iranian affairs. Would this
action be co-ordinated with the European positions, after those
adopted by the United States?

In the Afghan affair, the Portuguese ambassador in Moscow
was recalled and a cultural agreement totally irrelevant to the
problem concerned was broken off in the name of this West European
unity.

In the case of Iran, we imposed an embargo on trade that is
non-existent, even in the highly important sector of oil.

THE PRESIDENT (translation)

Mr Bacelar,
would you please restrict yourself to asking a question rather than
making a statement.

Mr BACELAR (translation)

I
shall ask some questions, then, Mr President, so as to comply with
your instructions.

I ask therefore:

First, whether this policy, in the European context, is in
line with the European solidarity which must exist, even for these
problems.

Second, whether this policy, for it would seem that it is
being pursued, will help to increase Europe’s independent role and
build a truly united Europe with a policy of its own in the European
institutions or whether it will not rather lead to the under-organisation
of our country and at the same time a deterioration in the dialogue
with our former colonies, whose policy is one of identification
with the opposite bloc, the Soviet bloc. Is this policy likely to
contribute to an understanding with the former Portuguese colonies
– a relationship which would be of greater value to Europe and world
peace? Is your policy not linked with a return to the cold war?

THE PRESIDENT (translation)

Mr Bacelar,
I must ask you to conclude, for democracy requires that I give other
members an opportunity to speak.

Mr BACELAR (translation)

Prime
Minister, you announced an electoral law, saying that emigrants
were under-represented.

But elections were held in Portugal two months ago; other
elections – intermediate ones – are to take place next September.
I ask you – you who were made Prime Minister by elections recognised
by the opposition as democratic – whether this new electoral law
is really designed to favour emigrants, or whether its real aim
is not rather to perpetuate your government by burying in the near
future the rules of the game which brought you to power?

Mr Sa Carneiro, Prime Minister of Portugal (translation)

I mentioned the continuity in
the European policies of my own and preceding governments. The Honourable
Member preferred to stress the divergences. So as not to detract from
this continuity, let me say that distinctions do indeed exist: between
words and deeds, between a clearly-defined position and confusion.

Our policy is perfectly clear. In no way does it harm the
European cause. On the contrary, it furthers it. Solidarity is one
matter, independent stances adopted in international assemblies
and on one’s own are another. The stances we took on the events
in Afghanistan and in the Teheran hostages affair fit into the broader
framework of a European and Atlantic policy, and help to further
the cause of peace. But we have taken the risk, still a real one,
of harming our own economic interests. However, I trust you will
understand that when principles and the future of the international
community are at stake, economic interests must be considered of
secondary importance.

To reply to your last question concerning the electoral law,
I shall simply remind you that the rule of representative democracy
is that the will of the parliamentary majority shall be accepted.
For the remainder, I hope I shall have the opportunity to debate
this topic with you and your party in our own parliament, rather
than in this Assembly.

THE PRESIDENT

I consider
it very undemocratic not to be able to give the opportunity to all
those who have asked for the floor to ask questions of the Prime
Minister. It is very democratic, however, to allow each speaker only
one question, because had I allowed a supplementary question, only
half the number of speakers would have been able to ask questions.

May I, Prime Minister, thank you again. Tonight I hope to
be able to address you at greater length, but now, because of the
shortage of time, I shall limit myself to thanking you very much
for coming here. On behalf of the Assembly, thank you for answering
the questions that we put to you.